If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Wait, are you really that drunk? You do realize this is what he said in the debate this year right? As in this is what he is going to do (future tense) in his second term (which hasnít begun yet), right? So you voted for someone that you knew was going to clamp down on gun ownership even though you claim you do not agree with Costas, well at least your pattern of consistently being inconsistent continues.

Disagreeing with Costa's statement has nothing to do with agreeing on Obama's take on gun control.

Costa's statement was a clear vote against gun ownership. Obama wants assault weapons banned. Only a person with the IQ of a door knob would consider both opinions alike.

Costas was a pathetic handicapper when he did play by play for NBC in the early '80s. I lost plenty of respect for him at the time, but he earned it back in this case. I was watching that segment as it happened and was stunned when it was obvious he was actually going to follow through. It deserved a standing ovation.

Very few choices in life are more ignorant than gun ownership. It's simply mathematically clueless, improper weighting of variables, and therefore the natural path of the scared Simplistic Angry Male, but other blocks lack excuse. The gun sits there 24/7/365, with exponentially more potential to be summoned in an emotional dispute (like this case), or stumbled upon by a curious teenager, or even used successfully against the owner, than to be magically and successfully summoned against the naughty intruder.

I'm ashamed at my party for all but shelving the topic, particularly the past dozen years or so. It really started with Gore in 2000. Make no mistake, Democrats want to get rid of guns but they are petrified to say so, knowing they couldn't overcome it politically. I think it's disgraceful. The word liberal and the word taxes used to have devastating impact when abused by Republicans. Now those words are laughably hoisted even though the impact is all but gone. People have been educated about the related topics. The same potential is there for guns. They kill people, for god's sake. How charming. It's not bad people, it's the stupid availability of the deadly weapon. Seriously, how is Costas' statement, or Whitlock's, remotely controversial? You've got to be world class dense to believe those two people would be dead, minus a gun. Am I allowed to set odds? I couldn't make them high enough.

Costas was a pathetic handicapper when he did play by play for NBC in the early '80s. I lost plenty of respect for him at the time, but he earned it back in this case. I was watching that segment as it happened and was stunned when it was obvious he was actually going to follow through. It deserved a standing ovation.

Very few choices in life are more ignorant than gun ownership. It's simply mathematically clueless, improper weighting of variables, and therefore the natural path of the scared Simplistic Angry Male, but other blocks lack excuse. The gun sits there 24/7/365, with exponentially more potential to be summoned in an emotional dispute (like this case), or stumbled upon by a curious teenager, or even used successfully against the owner, than to be magically and successfully summoned against the naughty intruder.

I'm ashamed at my party for all but shelving the topic, particularly the past dozen years or so. It really started with Gore in 2000. Make no mistake, Democrats want to get rid of guns but they are petrified to say so, knowing they couldn't overcome it politically. I think it's disgraceful. The word liberal and the word taxes used to have devastating impact when abused by Republicans. Now those words are laughably hoisted even though the impact is all but gone. People have been educated about the related topics. The same potential is there for guns. They kill people, for god's sake. How charming. It's not bad people, it's the stupid availability of the deadly weapon. Seriously, how is Costas' statement, or Whitlock's, remotely controversial? You've got to be world class dense to believe those two people would be dead, minus a gun. Am I allowed to set odds? I couldn't make them high enough.

I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to disagree with you. Blaming this incident on the gun is removing any amount of personal responsibility from this situation. A gun is only a tool and doesn't have any will of it's own. It would be like saying that a shovel is responsible for digging a ditch. Now, I will concede that he probably wouldn't have done it there at the team facilities without a gun. It is still very likely that they would both still be dead (and possibly the baby as well) through some other means had he not had it.

Costas was a pathetic handicapper when he did play by play for NBC in the early '80s. I lost plenty of respect for him at the time, but he earned it back in this case. I was watching that segment as it happened and was stunned when it was obvious he was actually going to follow through. It deserved a standing ovation.

Very few choices in life are more ignorant than gun ownership. It's simply mathematically clueless, improper weighting of variables, and therefore the natural path of the scared Simplistic Angry Male, but other blocks lack excuse. The gun sits there 24/7/365, with exponentially more potential to be summoned in an emotional dispute (like this case), or stumbled upon by a curious teenager, or even used successfully against the owner, than to be magically and successfully summoned against the naughty intruder.

I'm ashamed at my party for all but shelving the topic, particularly the past dozen years or so. It really started with Gore in 2000. Make no mistake, Democrats want to get rid of guns but they are petrified to say so, knowing they couldn't overcome it politically. I think it's disgraceful. The word liberal and the word taxes used to have devastating impact when abused by Republicans. Now those words are laughably hoisted even though the impact is all but gone. People have been educated about the related topics. The same potential is there for guns. They kill people, for god's sake. How charming. It's not bad people, it's the stupid availability of the deadly weapon. Seriously, how is Costas' statement, or Whitlock's, remotely controversial? You've got to be world class dense to believe those two people would be dead, minus a gun. Am I allowed to set odds? I couldn't make them high enough.

Last time I checked people killed each other people pretty effectively and consistently long before the gun came around. Hell if this was 1000 years ago he would have just chopped her up with an axe or sword. Then what??? Even OJ killed 2 people without a gun. In the end this dude was CRAZY and nothing would have stopped this murder and suicide from happening.

Costas was a pathetic handicapper when he did play by play for NBC in the early '80s. I lost plenty of respect for him at the time, but he earned it back in this case. I was watching that segment as it happened and was stunned when it was obvious he was actually going to follow through. It deserved a standing ovation.

Very few choices in life are more ignorant than gun ownership. It's simply mathematically clueless, improper weighting of variables, and therefore the natural path of the scared Simplistic Angry Male, but other blocks lack excuse. The gun sits there 24/7/365, with exponentially more potential to be summoned in an emotional dispute (like this case), or stumbled upon by a curious teenager, or even used successfully against the owner, than to be magically and successfully summoned against the naughty intruder.

I'm ashamed at my party for all but shelving the topic, particularly the past dozen years or so. It really started with Gore in 2000. Make no mistake, Democrats want to get rid of guns but they are petrified to say so, knowing they couldn't overcome it politically. I think it's disgraceful. The word liberal and the word taxes used to have devastating impact when abused by Republicans. Now those words are laughably hoisted even though the impact is all but gone. People have been educated about the related topics. The same potential is there for guns. They kill people, for god's sake. How charming. It's not bad people, it's the stupid availability of the deadly weapon. Seriously, how is Costas' statement, or Whitlock's, remotely controversial? You've got to be world class dense to believe those two people would be dead, minus a gun. Am I allowed to set odds? I couldn't make them high enough.

For the record, I don't own a gun and am in favor of strict gun laws. With that beng said, I don't think I've seen a more ignorant post since presscoverage trolled these boards.

For the record, I don't own a gun and am in favor of strict gun laws. With that beng said, I don't think I've seen a more ignorant post since presscoverage trolled these boards.

I agree with the first part of your statement Jared, but PC was far from ignorant. He and I used to go round and round if you remember, and he was always intteligent thoughtful and lucid in his arguments.

Just like Costas, i don't agree with his argument, but i respect his intelligence and passion for his point, however misguided i believe him to be.

For the person that thinks banning gun ownership would have prevented this tragedy, let me ask you. If he had bashed her head in with a claw hammer, would you be outside of home depot demanding that all hammers be banned? I didnt think so. Understand the difference between the crime and the weapon used to commit the crime and you'll see....all the bans in the world dont mean a damn unless you can change the hearts and minds of wicked men